Skincare packaging matters: why you should avoid jars & tubs

If you’re spending money on skincare in jars, you’re putting your skin at a disadvantage, especially with anti-ageing formulas. We reveal the research behind this topic and share the kinds of effective skincare packaging required for maximum benefit.

What you can expect:
Jar packaging & skincare ingredient stability issues
Jar packaging & hygiene: is the preservative system enough?
What to look for in smart skincare packaging
Why the skincare industry continues to use jars

Jar packaging & skincare ingredient stability issues

The research says: many ingredients break down once exposed to air. This includes antioxidants and anti-ageing ingredients like vitamin C and retinol. Opening a jar lets air in. This causes important ingredients to start breaking down, so they become less effective with each use.

Making matters worse, see-through glass jars (or clear bottles or tubes) allow routine exposure to daylight, further compromising the efficacy of these types of ingredients. You could store your skincare away from light, but they’ll still see light when you use them and that’s not ideal for ingredient integrity.

Beyond ingredient efficacy, jar packaging can also cause noticeable changes in colour and product texture.

We can stabilise cosmetic ingredients (like retinal) so they stay effective for longer – even when exposed to light and air. We can stabilise even further by adding supportive ingredients, like adding vitamin E to vitamin C esters (like tetrahexyldecyl ascorbate). Formula design is very important, but even stabilised ingredients have a shelf life. Depending on levels of exposure, they can still break down over time.

Jar packaging & hygiene: is the preservative system enough?

Every time you dip your fingers into a jar, you contaminate the formula. This happens even if you wash your hands first or use the spatula that comes with some jar-packaged products. Keeping the tools and your fingers completely clean is simply impossible.

This hygiene issue stresses the formula's preservative system, leading to further degradation of beneficial ingredients. Simply put, jar packaging is more likely to lead to unwanted microorganisms within your cosmetics.

In water-based formulas, microorganisms are more likely to grow, but preservatives generally do a good job of controlling this growth. This helps keep the product safe and stable so no need to worry about issues from regular exposure to pathogens.

Skincare consumers don’t have access to the below details at the point of sale and brands may not be forthcoming with such information. Most likely because they tend to make people pause before buying water-based skincare in a jar:

• Preservative type and concentration: the choice and amount of preservative must match the formula and intended use. With the focus on clean beauty and its demonisation of conventional preservatives with broad-spectrum activity, many brands choose a blend of less effective preservatives at lower (minimum) concentrations. In ideal packaging, this approach can pay off nicely but in jars, it’s more problematic.
• Product formulation: complex formulations may affect preservative performance, especially if certain ingredients interact with the preservative system. Sometimes we know this in advance and sometimes it happens post-market, but both cases need formula tweaks to ensure better preservation and longer stability.
• Water activity: this is about the amount of water available for microbial growth and chemical reactions. This phenomenon makes or breaks the potential for uncontrolled pathogen growth in an emulsion. Consumers cannot figure this out from an ingredient list – even labs with the right equipment can make mistakes due to user error or improper calibration.
• Packaging design: open jars are more likely to get contaminated compared to airless pumps or tubes that minimise exposure to air, airborne pathogens and contact with fingers.
• User experience: consumers can take steps to minimise the risk of contamination. But in daily life, it’s reasonable that not everyone will always thoroughly wash their hands before dipping into a jar, recap the product tightly after every use or make sure the cap is tightly closed.

There is no hygienically perfect cosmetic packaging, but standard jars are potentially the least hygienic option. Yes, the preservative system should fight off common germs found on fingers and in the air, but we ask: why stress the preservative system? You can simply choose packaging that protects its contents from contaminants.

*Airless jars are different to regular jars. You press the top down to dispense product without opening it, which means they limit air flow and help keep the delicate ingredients stable.

What to look for in smart skincare packaging

Smart skincare packaging is a cornerstone of Paula’s Choice. We make sure our complex formulas stay as potent and effective as possible with airless pumps, multi-layer tubes, opaque bottles, UV-protected containers and air-restrictive openings.

Here are a few examples of smart skincare packaging:

• Our CLINICAL 1% Retinol Treatment uses a double-walled opaque container. We fill it with a unique stabilising process that allows for next-to-zero oxygen exposure.
• Our C15 Super Booster contains an internal stopper that can stop air from getting pushed back into the bottle whenever you replace the dropper applicator.

The key takeaway: minimising air and light maximises your skincare benefits.

Why the skincare industry continues to use jars

You might wonder – if all of this is true, then why do companies continue to sell expensive skincare creams in jars? Trust us, we’re just as frustrated by this as you are.

The research on jar packaging is not hidden away anywhere. It’s been around for years and cosmetic chemists know it well.

The U.S. Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) in 2004 state: “Packaging can directly affect finished product stability because of interactions which can occur between the product, the package, and the external environment. Such interactions may include … barrier properties of the container [and] its effectiveness in protecting the contents from the adverse effects of atmospheric oxygen…”

A materials development scientist and personal care scientist wrote a more recent article in the 2022 SOFW Journal, claiming: “Oxidation of these ingredients [plant extracts and lipids] causes the emulsion to lose not only its antioxidant benefits but also its dermatological benefits".

Despite the research-based facts about jar packaging, many consumers still prefer fancy, weighty jars. We think that’s why so many brands continue to use them and why people continue to buy them.

Another reason is that it can be easier and less expensive for a company to put their formulas in jars. But this shortcut shortchanges your skin. State-of-the-art, stability-proof packaging may cost more, but it is essential for the formula to work properly for your skin.

Minimising exposure to air and light is crucial to keeping your skincare working at its best. This way, you’ll see enhanced results for as long as the formula is within date! Even if the aesthetics of jar packaging look pretty on your skincare shelf, it’s always good to remember the research and prioritise the health of your skin first.

References for this information:

Journal of Pharmacy & BioAllied Sciences, April-June 2013, pages 98-110
Dermatologic Therapy, September-October 2007, pages 314-321
Ageing Research Reviews, December 2007, pages 271-288
AAPS PharmSciTech, January 2018, pages 36-47
Journal of Food Science and Technology, April 2021, pages 879-889
Food Frontiers, September 2024, pages 2,275-2,289
AAPS PharmSciTech, January 2018, pages 60-78
Journal of Cosmetic Science, July/Aug 2018, pages 245-255
Postles, A. (2018). Factors affecting the measurement of stability and safety of cosmetic products, Bournemouth University
Microorganisms, November 2020, pages 1-31
Molecules, June 2018, pages 1-41
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, March 2004, page 4
SOFW Journal, October 2022, pages 56-59